IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20063
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALI REZA DADI, also known as Raymond Dadi,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-4099
USDC No. H-98-CR-419-1
- - - - - - - - - -
February 12, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ali Reza Dadi, federal prisoner # 59270-079, appeals
from the summary denial of his motion for relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted a certificate of appealability
(COA) on Dadi’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for
misadvising him to reject the Government’s plea offer and undergo
trial and on whether the cause should be remanded for the
district court to file written findings of fact and conclusions
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-20063
- 2 -
of law, and denied a COA on the remaining issues raised in Dadi’s
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
Dadi argues that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel regarding a plea offer when trial counsel misinformed him
of the sentence he faced if he proceeded to trial. He also
argues that the district court erred by denying his motion
without making written factual findings and legal conclusions.
The record does not show conclusively that Dadi is not
entitled to relief. First, the record does not refute Dadi’s
assertion that there was a plea offer. Indeed, in Dadi’s
objections to the presentence report, counsel mentioned a plea
offer and an understanding with the Government about the sentence
Dadi faced if he proceeded to trial. Second, we cannot say that
the record does not suggest a reasonable probability that Dadi
would have received a significantly less severe sentence had Dadi
accepted the Government’s plea offer. See Teague v. Scott, 60
F.3d 1167, 1172 (5th Cir. 1995). We express no opinion regarding
whether Dadi actually received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Because the record does not show conclusively or plainly
that Dadi is entitled to no relief, the district court erred in
summarily denying his motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also
Rule 4(b), RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS. We therefore
vacate the order denying relief on Dadi’s claim that counsel was
ineffective regarding his advice to reject the plea offer and
proceed to trial and remand that claim for further proceedings.
No. 02-20063
- 3 -
On remand the district court ”shall cause notice [of Dadi’s
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion] to be served upon the United States
attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues
and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
VACATED AND REMANDED.